In Baseball vs. Rodriguez, a Show of Tough Posturing

The Yankees' Alex Rodriguez will contest any suspension and will challenge the credibility of any evidence brought forth, his lawyer David Cornwell said in a radio interview with ESPN on Monday.Credit
Scott Audette/Reuters

As Major League Baseball moves closer to suspending Alex Rodriguez for what it believes to be his involvement with performance-enhancing drugs, it has taken an increasingly tough stance in public. Baseball has conveyed its willingness to issue a lifetime suspension to Rodriguez and possibly to circumvent the usual appeals process that a player can normally use under the sport’s Joint Drug Agreement.

In turn, the lead lawyer for Rodriguez, David Cornwell, has adopted a determined posture of his own. In a radio interview with ESPN on Monday, he said Rodriguez would contest any suspension and would challenge the credibility of the evidence presented against him.

In effect, the two sides appear to be seeking leverage through the news media, with baseball presumably hoping that the way its position is portrayed in various news reports will persuade Rodriguez and his team of advisers to accept a substantial punishment — much larger than the 65-game ban that Ryan Braun recently agreed to as part of the same investigation that has ensnared Rodriguez.

Rodriguez, if he accepted any suspension at all, would presumably want something small enough to let him play at least part of the 2014 season.

For instance, Major League Baseball did not dispute published reports on Monday that Commissioner Bud Selig could invoke a rarely used clause in the sport’s collective bargaining agreement to suspend Rodriguez on grounds that he interfered with its investigation into the anti-aging clinic suspected of distributing performance enhancers to Rodriguez and other players and, by doing so, threatened the integrity of the game.

If Selig did take such a step, he would be bypassing the normal procedures under the drug prevention program and would be able, at least temporarily, to prevent Rodriguez from playing while he appealed.

Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, those reports emerged hours after Cornwell went on the radio to talk about fighting any suspension and to question the authenticity, relevance and reliability of documents and other evidence that baseball is believed to have compiled against Rodriguez.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Michael Weiner, the head of the players association, expressed skepticism that Selig would take such unusual action against any player connected to the current drug investigation.

“I do not expect that to be invoked,” he said.

William Gould, a professor emeritus at Stanford Law School and a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, said Selig was essentially “firing a shot across A-Rod’s bow” in getting out into the public the notion that he might ignore normal protocol in drug cases in his efforts to punish Rodriguez.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

“I imagine Selig is just trying to use all leverage possible to get an agreement,” he added.

According to a person with knowledge of the situation, baseball wants Rodriguez to follow the precedent set forth by Braun, agree to a punishment and end the matter cleanly without a drawn-out legal battle that could damage the reputation of the game in all sorts of unpredictable ways.

But what the nature of that agreement might be is unclear, and whether one can be achieved in coming days is anyone’s guess. Which leaves both sides jockeying in public, although it is Selig who has essentially seized the spotlight.

As commissioner, he may have the power under Article XI of the collective bargaining agreement to mete out punishment to players for “the preservation of the integrity of, or the maintenance of public confidence in, the game of baseball,” although that is under some dispute.

The players association has long maintained that the clause relates only to gambling, and contends that all commissioners since the union’s inception have agreed in writing not to apply it in other cases. The commissioner’s office nevertheless believes the clause could have a broader scope.

The clause would theoretically enable Selig to step in and suspend Rodriguez for allegedly obstructing the investigation. Invoking that rule would, at the minimum, allow Selig to keep Rodriguez off the field for a month while he gathers information and holds his own hearing on the matter and then renders a decision. The player, in turn, is allowed to ask an arbitrator to stay the 30-day suspension.

But would Selig really want to take such a step and be accused of overreaching?

Weiner, on Tuesday, cited a letter Selig sent to him as part of the most recent collective bargaining agreement, the same type of letter that has been sent to the union in the past.

“I understand that the Players Association has expressed concern that the Commissioner might take some action pursuant to Article XI(A)(1)(b) of the Basic Agreement, which could negate rights of Players under the new Basic Agreement,” the letter states. “While I have difficulty seeing that this is a real problem, I am quite willing to assure the Association that the Commissioner will take no such action.”

If Selig did invoke the clause, it would most likely result in a legal battle over its meaning, legal experts say, based on the historical context and whether it pertains only to gambling, or to all matters potentially detrimental to the game.

It is one more battle baseball would probably prefer not to engage in. But right now, tough stances are the weapon of choice.

A version of this article appears in print on July 31, 2013, on Page B11 of the New York edition with the headline: In Baseball vs. Rodriguez, a Show of Tough Posturing. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe